Long Term Support For Civ 7

[ColtSeavers]

Sid Meier Still Involved In Civilization VII Development

While Sid Meier's name is still on every new Civilization game, the pioneering game designer is not the sole creative lead, or an auteur figure, for the

gamermatters.com

Sure he is.

But my point was that more a) Sid Meier also historically took a lot of input from board games, b) this contributed to why Civilisation existed in the first place, and c) that video games are a team effort, and that psychoanalysing / projecting a dislike of video games onto Beach specifically as a reason for why VII turned out the way it did is making more than one logical leap in a row. This was Xur's argument of course, not yours.

Board game DNA runs throughout Firaxis. It always has, as long as Meier has been there. If evicting Beach makes anyone feel better, that's an emotional argument. There's no guarantee it'll change any outcome r.e. studio inspirations for design mechanics.

Well, in my opinion, Ed brought the board game experience to a whole new level. Introducing features like policy cards, for example. It's the most 'board game' feature ever in any Civ game, if you ask me.

 

[Siptah]

I think Sid‘s actual involvement isn‘t quite clear. He is head of creative development or something like that - whatever that means. If I remember correctly, they said around launch that some novelties of the game were prototyped by Sid himself. You can probably find what exactly that was in these forums.

Civ was always close to board games imho, and board games in the past 20 years have been highly influential for computer games, I’d say - but also the other way round. Both mediums have their advantages and disadvantages, but I think especially for strategy, looking at board games has been and still is very beneficial for video games. Board games tend to have less mechanics, but the ones they have tend to be better integrated with the others and often reduced to a core that allows for interesting decisions without any busy work. In contrast, video games often embellish the same mechanics, which can make them better but often doesn‘t. Interestingly enough, I think mere bucket filling over long time has become less important in the new board games I’ve played in the past 7 or so years, while it seems to remain the prevalent mechanic in many strategy video games, and traditionally in civ. But I guess people would be up in arms if this changed…

 

[Siptah]

Well, in my opinion, Ed brought the board game experience to a whole new level. Introducing features like policy cards, for example. It's the most 'board game' feature ever in any Civ game, if you ask me.

I‘d say turns are. But yeah, the policy cards felt like playing a board game. It‘s partly a matter of presentation though (cards), ease of change (slotting in and out every few turns), and disconnect between card names and benefit. The governments of civ 2-4 (don’t remember 1 right now) or the trees of civ 5 aren‘t really less „board gamey“ though, at least mechanically. They aren‘t dynamic or complex governments, as for example the civics tree in Humankind is. The latter would be hard to do in a board game.

 

[Gorbles]

Well, in my opinion, Ed brought the board game experience to a whole new level. Introducing features like policy cards, for example. It's the most 'board game' feature ever in any Civ game, if you ask me.

Fair enough! Not sure I agree, but I figure that's a whole other thread.

The short version is (imo) there's a difference between the aesthetic of how something is presented, and the mechanical impact it has on the game. The two are related, like an overlapping Venn diagram. Things that contribute to, or take away from, a video game feeling like a board game can sit in either circle in the diagram. The effect is strengthened in the overlap / intersection.

 

[GeneralZift]

I don't want to hate on Ed, but I think a new designer would bring a change of pace that would be heavily appreciated for the series. That or maybe he could try approaching the design differently, you know?

 

[Crashdummy]

Only Firaxis would know how much impact Ed Beach had in the current design, but the franchise does need someone that can help bring it back to its roots. Maybe Ed Beach or whoever proposed to take the franchise away form its roots can do it, as long as they dont try to keep trying with the things that made Civ 7 fail

 

[Binkov]

I have a feeling that if the expansion fails to sell well and cements civ 7's fate - the next civ game to come after that will be some sort of a reboot for the series, with no number following the name. Certainly not civilization 8.
Also, if that happens, I would expect such a rebooted game sooner rather than later. Not 9 years from now but more like 4-5.

 

[Leucarum]

I think Firaxis are targetting the right things to ensure the game has a long lifespan, but that they can't afford to hold back. They need to make some pretty sweeping changes for the game to have support for the same amount of time as Civ6. I want to see what the "big things" firaxis have said they are cooking will be, because they do need to be big at this point.

For me the sticking point with Civ 7 is civ-switching, so them focussing on how we better identify with our empire gives me some hope. I'm hoping they go quite far on this front as a purely cosmetic solution wouldn't cut it for me. As long as civs are only playable for 1/3 of a game, then buying XPACs is going to be a tough value proposition for me.

 

[Siptah]

I was honestly surprised that the next big thing on the horizon is map generation. I feel it was terrible at launch, making the games to predictable and repetitive. But the updates have already improved this by a lot (as a fractal player that I also was in previous civ games). It‘s still quite schematic with the small islands and basically two continents though. So maybe, the new maps will finally give us maps that are better than the ones in civ VI?

Or does „maps“ maybe even include a tile yield rebalance and the possibility to start in the DL?

 

[GeneralZift]

I was honestly surprised that the next big thing on the horizon is map generation. I feel it was terrible at launch, making the games to predictable and repetitive. But the updates have already improved this by a lot (as a fractal player that I also was in previous civ games). It‘s still quite schematic with the small islands and basically two continents though. So maybe, the new maps will finally give us maps that are better than the ones in civ VI?

Or does „maps“ maybe even include a tile yield rebalance and the possibility to start in the DL?

Maybe it's the capacity to select one type of map for the original lands and another for the far lands. Like continent and islands, or continent and continent, or so on

 

[Lebo44]

I was honestly surprised that the next big thing on the horizon is map generation.

I am not as I strongly believe that they should release World Builder / Scenario editor ASAP. That could allow players to create their own Era specific scenarios (i.e. a colonization scenario would be so cool) what could improve the reception of the game. Map Generation adjustments could be a step towards that.

 

[Siptah]

Maybe it's the capacity to select one type of map for the original lands and another for the far lands. Like continent and islands, or continent and continent, or so on

That would be very welcome indeed. But this would probably keep the two rectangles then.

 

[Xur]

I have a feeling that if the expansion fails to sell well and cements civ 7's fate - the next civ game to come after that will be some sort of a reboot for the series, with no number following the name. Certainly not civilization 8.
Also, if that happens, I would expect such a rebooted game sooner rather than later. Not 9 years from now but more like 4-5.

One could argue that civ7 was a reboot, as it's so far from anything the previous civs did. They already killed the tagline: "build a civilization to stand the test of time", so in my opinion they would need to double down on the classic naming scheme and bring back the tagline. Marketing almost writes itself for civ8: "Back to our roots", "build a civilization to stand the test of time" etc.

I think they would need to do something like EU5 did and bring in actual fans much earlier in the design phase. Dont use friends/family or that frankenstein group for feedback - they are obviously clueless about what the majority of people want or Ed Beach ignored them. Focus on giant maps gameplay and make the gameplay (AI) work for that. Scaling down is easier than scaling up. Get 6 small teams of fans that represent each previous game (forget civ7 exists). If you can get all of these 6 groups to like civ8, then I think you are set up for success. If you just focus on those that liked civ6, you'll keep failing. These 6 teams could even be a giant marketing plotline, that confirms that they listened to "real" feedback this time. I think a little self-reflection would serve Firaxis well.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Get 6 small teams of fans that represent each previous game (forget civ7 exists). If you can get all of these 6 groups to like civ8, then I think you are set up for success

One thing that I've become aware of through the discussions here, though, is that there are now significant dichotomies that have developed within the fanbase. And they have developed in part because of individual preferences but also in part because previous numbers of the game did one thing or another in a particular way, and fans of that game came to like it and regard it as definitive of the franchise. I'm trying to compile as complete a list as I can, because I think it would help illustrate what any new set of devs are up against when they undertake to design a new number of the franchise. So feel free to add any that I haven't thought of, but here is my list:

Should it be a computer game or a board-game on a computer? (I don't quite understand this one, because 3 supposedly falls into the computer-game era of the franchise, but it feels like a board-game to me; turns and a map make anything feel like a board-game to me, so I obviously don't understand what people are driving at when they say 1-4 were computer games. But I do know it's one of the dichotomies that splits fans).

Should it involve entirely high-level empire-management strategy or can it include the tactical-level dimension that came in with 1UPT?

Should it maximize or minimize micro-management? (for my part, I love micro-management; I love feeling I'm getting the tiniest edge by some little thing I do with my tile assignments or tile development; these tiny edges add up to my advantage in the game, so I think of them as how I am competing in the game. But I also totally understand that there would be people who find micro-management tedious and want "optimization" instead).

Should it be built primarily as a multi-player game or primarily as a single-player game, and then the other derived out of that starting basis?

Should it favor wide or tall? How many cities should a normal/winning empire have in them? (Civ 5 made playing wide difficult, but then, does the 4-city empire that is optimal there really end up feeling like an empire? On the other hand, if your empire covers dozens of cities across the whole globe, does managing those cities become tedious?)

Should the AI civs play to win the game or just be part of the background environment in which you build your own empire?

Should the game prioritize the meeting of victory conditions, or should it most fundamentally allow sandbox-style play?

Should the game resist snowballing, or is snowballing just a negative term for the very thing you should be trying to do in the game: min-max so as to build up an advantage on all of the other civs?

How significant should the changes be from the past iteration to the next? Should the game-play mechanics work essentially the same way, so that all of your skills in # carry over into #+1? Or should a new # have fresh mechanics from the ground up? ("I don't want no #.2").

So I'm not sure that, at this point, you could get your 6 focus groups to agree on what would make a good direction for 8. (Plus, people who like elements of 7 would feel resentful at being excluded and would boycott your stinkin' game).

 

[Gorbles]

One could argue that civ7 was a reboot, as it's so far from anything the previous civs did.

Nah, VII isn't a reboot. You just haven't accepted that it's okay to not like an entry in a multi-decade spanning franchise with numerous entries (and offshoots). It has to be seen as erroneous; an aberration.

"there must be an objective reason why I subjectively find this unenjoyable" plagues a lot of discourse, in my humble opinion.

The answer is simple: VII could be a popular / successful game, and you could still not like it. You don't like it, because of its content, its polish, its mechanics, whatever. There's nothing wrong with that. But none of this is criteria for a "reboot". You can clearly see where V and VI lead VII to. You can see the progression of 1UPT between V, VI and VII. You can see the progression of districts between VI and VII.

The developers swung big on the 33% new this time. They admitted as much. It hasn't worked out yet, and it's early enough in the game's lifecycle to know if it will work out or not. Maybe they make the game work. Maybe they don't.

But this is the gamble with every game. Even the "good" ones (and "good" could be as simple as uncontroversial, simple evolution on past mechanics. Playing it safe, as it were). In VII's case the state of the game on launch compounded the mechanical reception. The monetisation compounded it further. The developers have had a long climb to get to a place where they can see what they can do with the mechanics. Who knows that'll happen when they get there, assuming 2K allows it.

 

[Leucarum]

I didn't like Civ5. I walked away for that iteration, and also didn't spend my time badmouthing it on forums.

The trouble I have with Civ7 is that I really like and really dislike similar proportions of features. Which makes me really want to be vocal about how I think the game should develop.

 

[Lebo44]

Should it be a computer game or a board-game on a computer? (I don't quite understand this one, because 3 supposedly falls into the computer-game era of the franchise, but it feels like a board-game to me; turns and a map make anything feel like a board-game to me, so I obviously don't understand what people are driving at when they say 1-4 were computer games. But I do know it's one of the dichotomies that splits fans).

To me it is obsession about yields and numbers that moved Civ 6 and Civ 7 towards board games. They are EVERYWHERE.

In EU4 at least every nation had it own historical paths to follow. But in Civ even victory conditions and legacies are all about numbers. There is no immersive story behind, just build 10 cities or accumulate 1000 points of tourism.

In old Civ iterations economy development was rather simple so the real focus was on strategic decisions: what technologies discover first, when to expand, who to attack and when. AI was also better or felt more natural. And you could interact with it in many ways. What we got now? Influence points - another yield.

It is yield management game.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I see. Thank you. That helps me understand better.

 

[GeneralZift]

Nah, VII isn't a reboot. You just haven't accepted that it's okay to not like an entry in a multi-decade spanning franchise with numerous entries (and offshoots). It has to be seen as erroneous; an aberration.

"there must be an objective reason why I subjectively find this unenjoyable" plagues a lot of discourse, in my humble opinion.

The answer is simple: VII could be a popular / successful game, and you could still not like it. You don't like it, because of its content, its polish, its mechanics, whatever. There's nothing wrong with that. But none of this is criteria for a "reboot". You can clearly see where V and VI lead VII to. You can see the progression of 1UPT between V, VI and VII. You can see the progression of districts between VI and VII.

The developers swung big on the 33% new this time. They admitted as much. It hasn't worked out yet, and it's early enough in the game's lifecycle to know if it will work out or not. Maybe they make the game work. Maybe they don't.

But this is the gamble with every game. Even the "good" ones (and "good" could be as simple as uncontroversial, simple evolution on past mechanics. Playing it safe, as it were). In VII's case the state of the game on launch compounded the mechanical reception. The monetisation compounded it further. The developers have had a long climb to get to a place where they can see what they can do with the mechanics. Who knows that'll happen when they get there, assuming 2K allows it.

I mean what's to say it's not a reboot? Does it depend on what the developers say? Why can't a game be a reboot and you may like it and others may not?

A reboot is defined by large drastic changes, positively received or not. So by some measures you can say Civ7 is a reboot (by virtue of large changes or large numbers of changes) and that is widely negatively received.

I think it's a matter of opinion how much change is considered rebooting the franchise.

 

[Gorbles]

I mean what's to say it's not a reboot? Does it depend on what the developers say? Why can't a game be a reboot and you may like it and others may not?

A reboot is defined by large drastic changes, positively received or not. So by some measures you can say Civ7 is a reboot (by virtue of large changes or large numbers of changes) and that is widely negatively received.

I think it's a matter of opinion how much change is considered rebooting the franchise.

If our definition of words is "whatever the person posting them prefers", we're going to struggle more than usual in online discussions to get our point across to others

A reboot is commonly agreed to be a restarting of a series (or franchise, or even a singular game release). See: DOOM, Tomb Raider, and so on. It generally ties into the (new title's) marketing and franchise aspirations.